www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News CNN Poll on president defining marriage

Let's show the country that Marriage is a sacred union that God instituted for a man and a woman ALONE. You can go to the site below and VOTE! CNN is trying to prove the President wrong on his anti-gay-marriage stand.

This poll will be used by CNN to show how "out of date" the President is.

Subject: CNN Poll on marriage.

CNN Poll asks: Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman?
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/index.html

Thanks for the link, Rose.

Axios

Dear Rose:

The question is posed in terms of whether marriage should be LEGALLY defined as a union between as man and woman. I take it from your post that you see no difference in social policy and theology-based morality.

Yours,

kl

If we cannot legally define marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman, then we may as well, not only permit homosexual marriages, but also those that are bigamous and incestuous.

I also feel it would be wrong of me to vote in the CNN poll as it would be tantamount to putting God's word to a vote.

Krylos Leader:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

And I take it from your posts, here and elsewhere, that you see very few similarities between social policy and morality, let alone the possibility that they may serve to reinforce one another.

With all due respect, sir, your position is incredibly myopic.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Theo:

In my profession, when someone says "with all due repsect," this means "you're an idiot."

Given your obvious misapprehension of everything I've said (or intentional cheap shot), I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

kl

Krylos Leader:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

“Obvious misapprehension”? I think not.

You said: “...what is the government doing in the "marriage business" anyway? Other than making money at the state and local level for marriage licenses, that is. A civil marriage? What's that? But, I digress.”

Nonsense. There are several very good reasons for government involvement in the so-called marriage business. It is, after all, the very institution that produces, educates, and nurtures the citizens of tomorrow. That you think it's about money is simply foolish.

You said: “Having said that, if the President's opposition is solely based upon religious beliefs, I cannot help but think that this could legitimately be seen as a small step towards a fundamentalist theocracy.”

More nonsense. That you would even suggest that the use of religious-based vocabulary is a “step” toward “theocracy” (whatever that means) is absurd.

You said: “However, when one talks of government legislating morality, I get nervous becasue someday, that same goverment may wish to impose a moral standard upon us that we do NOT happen to agree with.”

Legislating morality is what governments do. Period. They can't avoid doing so, because their responsibility is to serve the common GOOD.

You said: “In other words, the Consitution of the United States of America, I submit to you sir, contemplates the situation that someone may not share your religious beliefs as to what is or is not acceptable sexual conduct.”

Where did you go to law school? The 1st Amendment protections of free exercise and against an established church have absolutely nothing to do with “sexual morality.” An established church is NOT created by legislation that may be grounded in a particular faith.

Etc., etc.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Theophilus:

Let's not confuse the "use of religious-based vocabulary" with "opposition ... solely based upon religious beliefs". The key word is soley. Therefore a fair paraphrase would be "exclusive use of religious criteria", not mere "use", or mere "vocabulary", and not merely "religious-based".

I promised to get back to you on this point when it came up in an earlier thread.

I think we can agree that there a many criteria of GOODness, not all of which which have a moral dimension. Moreover, while there is may be overlap between "common GOOD" and religious morality, there are broad, exclusive areas. For example, I think it safe to say that criteria of common good in a dis-established, religiously plural, liberal, democracy do not immediately include avoidance of the wrath of G-d, advancement of the eternal salvation of the souls of our countrymen, etc.

In the great experiment of our nation, the idea of what "governments do" goes back to the Declaration of Independence: "...that to secure these rights [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] governments are instituted". The common good, then, can be understood to measured in terms of an maximization of freedom consistent with enough order to secure life and to pursue "happiness". There is a trade-off here, which tends to be resolved in favor of freedom absent a "compelling state interest" (illuminating words used in the majority opinion in the Texas sodomy case). Thus, we endure an absence of laws proscribing all sorts of immoral behavior, even when a cogent case can be made that such behavior is injurious to the state.

How is this experiment working out? With this freedom we have accomplished a lot to be proud of, but, IMO, we have certainly not made it easy to be good, or to value goodness. This is the curse of affluence, the hubris of the Garden. ISTM that the best response to this is hard serious work by churches and by families, rather than a retreat from our great experiment in self-government.

Others certainly see the role of the state in promoting moral behavior differently than I do. ISTM that declarations from the Vatican that appear to dictate how one should vote on certain issues presuppose a diferent standard of "GOOD" that implicitly views our experiment (maximal freedom constrained just enough to avoid chaos), as wrong. And wrong in a moral sense. They seem to be suggesting that the promotion of moral behavior and even the advancement of the salvation is a responsibility of the state. I don't disagree, in principle with this utopian ideal - arguably better met in the governments of the Byzantine or Holy Roman Empire. But it is not the ideal that I think we are experimenting with in the US. And, this is the reason, IMO, that such declarations don't have a lot of traction in our political arena.

djs:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

You said: "I think we can agree that there are many criteria of goodness, not all of which have a moral dimension."

I don't agree, and your example of the American experiment in ordered liberty is far from dispositive. The fact that we decide not to regulate certain actions or behaviors in the name of maximizing personal freedom is, in and of itself, a moral position and teaches a moral lesson. The official morality of Lockean liberal polities such as ours is that freedom to do as we wish is "better" than the duty to do what is right.

There is no such thing as "neutrality."

Please provide better examples.

In Christ,
Theophilos

_____________________________
I can see your point, but if believers don't express themselves, only the views of non-believers will be heard

It is? My reading of Locke is more that on some matters, the freedom of the individual is better than the dictate of the state.

Let us be honest. In the periods in history of least deference to individual liberty, the State, even when claiming to be acting for Christendom, made some serious mistakes. And the Church herself, when given the authority, also made serious mistakes.

I think Locke affirms the duty to do right, he just does not see the State as always superior to the individual in making that judgement.

Axios

I take it from your post that you see no difference in social policy and theology-based morality.

Without theology based morality there is no social policy. Without Christ all is for naught, no beginning and no end, each man unto himself. Without Christ's Word and His Church holding fast to these truths, social policy easily becomes a Sodom and Gamorah.

If it takes Congress to make clear what the Scriptures already say for a people whose head is firmly stuck in the ground to hide from the truths of God, then let it be. It is better for our nation to have defined it accordingly than to leave us open to the rath of God anymore than it already had. Sooner or later at some point in life, either now or in heaven, they must acknowlege marriage as one man and one woman sanctified befor the alter of God as husband and wife, for as long as they shall live.

However, if our government is forced to define such a law, then it is because we as children of God, have not done what we are suppose to do. We have not evangelized a hurting people. We have remained silent and let others do the work.

Leave it to CNN to 'spin' this issue as a Bush problem.

Why don't they ask the people if the Defense of Marriage Act 1996 should be lifted? The President is only defending what the previous President (Clinton) signed into law. This is not a matter of Bush wanting to force his definition of marriage or codifying "discrimination," but enforcing what is already on the books. If the gay brigade and Lavender Mafia wants to point fingers, they can point them at the legislators who wrote the Act and the President who signed it.

How short-termed and selective memories can be ...

CNN is jump-starting their campaigning for the next election. Its only typical since they are upset that many have turned to Fox news and MSNBC for their news source. Did you see the "polls" showing how many folks left CNN behind for the second Gulf War coverage?

Joe

Dear Theophilus:
Good food, good, wine, good music, good art - elements of good life - need not and generally do not contain a moral dimension. And as I further pointed out, there are aspects of good morality that are certainly not considered as part of our political aims for the common good. There is overlap between good, in general, and moral good. But there is no identity.

I don't see this as a moral position but a practical one. In practice this leads to the possiblility of a better life by many criteria of better which are not necessarily identical to moral goodness.

Teaching is an attribute of moral law - which is an ideal before which all fall short. Civil law is a minimal standard to which all are expected to rigorously uphold or be denied life, liberty, and/or property. I think that considering civil law a a teacher of morality is a notion that should be dispelled.

Joe,
If Bush meant to say that his aim was to "enforce what is on the book" he might ohave said that, and not talked in terms of having lawyers working to codify something or other. What did he mean? Not even his spokesman was able to clarify. :rolleyes: